How can I know everything about the US life? And it was in the 60s! I`ve just called some friends of mine they know nothing about this person."M`s "family" violently killed 7 people in Los Angeles in 1969, including the actress Sharon Tate." No, don`t know either his name or the actress`s. And he has his Fan Club???

How can I know everything about the US life? And it was in the 60s! I`ve just called some friends of mine they know nothing about this person."M`s "family" violently killed 7 people in Los Angeles in 1969, including the actress Sharon Tate." No, don`t know either his name or the actress`s. And he has his Fan Club???

Have you heard of Roman Polanski? The Beatles?

Manson and his Family go way beyond US life. The people murdered and their families were not all Americans and some of them were quite well known the world over. Plus, it's a pretty big thing in Beatle history.

Besides all that, this was a HORRIFIC and very bizarre event. The kind that usually attracts world attention. And no, I was not around when it actually happened, but it's been talked about ad nauseam pretty much every year since it's happened.

Manson and his Family go way beyond US life. The people murdered and their families were not all Americans and some of them were quite well known the world over. Plus, it's a pretty big thing in Beatle history.

Besides all that, this was a HORRIFIC and very bizarre event. The kind that usually attracts world attention. And no, I was not around when it actually happened, but it's been talked about ad nauseam pretty much every year since it's happened.

I agree with pc about the sheltered thing.

Why should I know about the US life so much? :-/ Roman Polanski and The Beatles are different things, they are culture, my American friend! If I started asking you questions about the Russian life, would you know a thing? While I do know a thing or two about America. If he goes in Beatle history, I admit I don`t know it, but I haven`t been a fan as long as you have, you have had more time to accumulate all the information. And there`s nothing to be ashamed of. Where is it talked about? Not here, not on the news I`ve heard of. I believe it must have been mentioned, but not so many times as in the USA. Why do you think that what happens in the USA must be of such overwhelming interest to other countries of the world? All the people I`ve asked so far do not know this name. But they all were not around (born yet) when it happened. The sheltered thing depends on which side ot the shelter you stand, maybe it`s vice versa.

Apparently you didn't understand A WORD I said. It goes beyond US culture and you didn't have to be born at the time to be aware of it. And I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth again. I never said or implied that things that happen in the US must be "such overwhelming interest to other countries of the world." I'm speaking of this event and this event alone. Manson's name has become synonymous with evil. The world over. Read a newspaper or something. It's like saying who the hell is Jack the Ripper. Why should I know who that is? I'm not from England! I can't explain this any better and you're not going to get it anyway. You'll just continue to accuse me of being an arrogant American or something. So whatever.

Here, educate yourself. Pick up a newspaper or magazine. I'm pretty sure the Russian media has done a story or two about Manson. God knows they don't acknowledge their own serial killers. You are aware of Andrei Chikatilo no? :

[size=18]Charles Manson - The Story That Stopped the World in it's Tracks[/size]

Few crimes literally strike fear and horror into the collective hearts of this world. However the story of the Manson Family and specifically Charles Manson himself in 1969 managed to do exactly that, with the brutal murder of the beautiful 26 year old actress, Sharon Tate, who was stabbed 51 times, 40 years ago.

At that time, Sharon was 8 months pregnant and living with husband Roman Polanski at 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles. Polanski escaped being murdered himself, as he was working in London with the intention of returning for the birth of their baby.

When he was notified of his wife's death, Polanski immediately flew back to the U.S., under heavy sedation.

I'm bringing this story to you now, on what will be the 40th anniversary (in August) of those killings, because today the cult and gang mentality is becoming worse, not only in America, but in many countries.

Many youths today who have terrible home lives, brutalized, or living on the streets, are easily drawn into such groups, with catch phrases such as 'now you have a family to look out for you.'

Young people today, would probably only know about Manson if their parents had passed the story on to them and it's my personal opinion that they should know. It's in their interest to find out how toxic such relationships can become, before they are indoctrinated.

Certainly, I've never seen a crime live on long past itself, with a long reach into the new millenium.

Victor Bugliosi was the prosecuter in the Manson case and eventually wrote a book that I and many thousands of people read, called "Helter Skelter." I read it because the trial had become an enormous media circus and I wanted to find out exactly what did happen from the source - which was probably the same reason that many others read it.

Predictably, a movie was made from the book and I confess that I don't remember whether or not it was absolutely faithful to Bugliosi's book.

Sharon Tate was not the only victim to fall at the hands of 'The Family'. The death list included Jay Sebring; Wojciech (Voyteck) Frykowski; Steve Parent and Abilgail Folger (the coffee heiress.)

With the blood still fresh on their knives and perverted minds, they murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, the following day. Manson had hoped that these two murders would incite a race war, believing that it was prophesied by the Beatle's song - "Helter Skelter."

While sourcing this article, I was surprised to find that there is still a fansite dedicated to Sharon Tate by her sister, Debra Tate. Somehow it seems fitting that if Manson and his cronies are still in the news, that this beautiful woman's life should be celebrated beyond their miserable existence.

F.A.C.T.net lists all the current cults of today and I must admit, I wasn't surprised to see Scientology listed, which I believe to be one of the most insidious cults of today.

Here is a synopsis of what happened on that fateful night when Sharon Tate and her friends were brutally murdered:

Manson sent the psycho posse out on their infamous errand. Tex Watson, Pat Krenwinkle, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian (coz she was the only one with a driver's license) got in a 1959 Ford, and drove to the house on Cielo Drive.

They arrived around midnite. Tex cut the phone lines, which landed on the gate. They scaled the hillside behind the gate, for fear of electric shock. Once on the other side, they encountered Steve Parent, 18, driving towards them in his white Rambler.

Parent was visiting William Garretson, the caretaker - and trying to sell him a radio. Garretson was staying in the guest cottage, at the far end of the property. Watson tells the girls to hide when the headlights head their way. Tex held up his hand and ordered Parent to "HALT".

That was only the beginning of their killing spree - you can read more about that horrific night here if you're interested. Scroll down to the heading in capital letters - NEXT! on the left side.

Here are some of the latest known photographs of Sharon Tate.

Back in 1969, it seemed that Manson, or anything to do with him, was on the lips of the public - disbelief; shock; horror; anger and absolutely no acceptance. The 'Family' were entirely devoted to Manson and that might have something to do with the fact that drugs were freely distributed and taken on the ranch where they lived.

Manson at his best, had an electric and charismatic nature. Put that together with drugs and they loved him even more than they did when they arrived.

He still wears the swastika proudly carved into his forehead this day.

Today he has lost that charisma with age, looking old at 74 (pictured). He still petitions for parole each time it comes up, but he is serving several consecutive life sentences and will not be paroled in his lifetime.

However, his next parole hearing will be in 2012 where I and millions of other people hope, that he'll be denied any kind of freedom again. With any luck, the parole board will restate what they said at a parole hearing in 2007:

Despite his age, Manson "continues to pose an unreasonable danger to others and may still bring harm to anyone he would come in contact with," the board wrote in its denial.

Manson has had 12 disciplinary violations since his last parole hearing in 2002. He refused to take advantage of rehabilitation programs, and he would not participate in a psychiatric evaluation, Sequeira said.

"He refused to cooperate, so the conclusion they drew from the reports is he still remains a danger to the public," Sequeira said in a telephone interview. "He was convicted of nine horrible murders. He has expressed no remorse or empathy for any of the victims."

Manson was originally given the death penalty, but shortly after the trial, the state did away with the death penalty and he is now incarcerated for several consecutive lifetimes.

It is interesting to note here, the differences in the judicial system then - and now. Because Manson was never actually at the murder sites and didn't personally commit any of the murders - it was clear through testimony by the rest of 'the family' that he had been the malevolent mastermind and power that sent them all out to commit the atrocities.

I suppose today, he would have been exonerated, due to 'circumstantial evidence' and he would have been free to add to his 'family' to kill again, and again, and again.

It's amazing how this story will not die. It became news again because of his recent parole hearing and the new movie that is currently out on DVD named: "The Six Degrees of Helter Skelter."

Am I missing something here? I don't understand why this aggressive attitude towards Jane. She's not heard of Charles Manson. So? The people she has asked haven't heard of Charles Manson either. So? It's a pretty big thing in Beatles history, and she still hasn't heard of him. So? My goodness, she might even be sheltered, and on top of that didn't take the suggestion to google before posting. This justifies such a venomous tone? I'm sorry, but it's not pretty to read.

Alexis, give me a break. You know her posting history. She's brought this tone on all by herself by being aggressive or condescending in her own posts. There's only so much people are going to stand for before developing an attitude towards said poster. And I don't think I got "venomous" until she once again projected feelings/attitudes on me that I in no way implied in my previous post. And really, venomous? I mean come on. A little overreacting on your part I think. Sorry. We're all big boys and girls here. Not everything has to be coated with fake praise and smiley faces.

Manson and his Family go way beyond US life. The people murdered and their families were not all Americans and some of them were quite well known the world over. Plus, it's a pretty big thing in Beatle history.

Besides all that, this was a HORRIFIC and very bizarre event. The kind that usually attracts world attention. And no, I was not around when it actually happened, but it's been talked about ad nauseam pretty much every year since it's happened.

I agree with pc about the sheltered thing.

I wrote: I don`t know who C. M. is.Instead of saying: Well, everybody knows about him, look it up...You chose to make fun of me and to be sarcastic.Sandra, your post is not an innocent one. The questions that you wrote imply that I haven`t heard of R. Polanski and the Beatles. This is very hurtful, especially about the Beatles. Why did you write them? You know I "have heard" of The Beatles. Why ask such a question? And finish your post on the same note, making the conclusion about being sheltered. This is not very pleasant. Is it? If I asked you such a question you would answer back! And according to you I should have just remained silent. Swallowed it up.I honestly wrote that I haven`t heard of C. Manson. I am not such a big girl as you are. I haven`t come across his name in the British and American press, though I read and translate a lot. Maybe it`s so far, maybe I just missed it or didn`t pay attention to it. But your post sounded like: Oh, you haven`t heard of him? How ignorant! And have you heard of The Beatles? Of R. Polanski? Very sheltered! And I was supposed to shut up.You are a clever person, Sandra, read your post again and say honestly whether you really didn`t want to punch.

I wrote: I don`t know who C. M. is.Instead of saying: Well, everybody knows about him, look it up...You chose to make fun of me and to be sarcastic.Sandra, your post is not an innocent one. The questions that you wrote imply that I haven`t heard of R. Polanski and the Beatles. This is very hurtful, especially about the Beatles. Why did you write them? You know I "have heard" of The Beatles. Why ask such a question? And finish your post on the same note, making the conclusion about being sheltered. This is not very pleasant. Is it? If I asked you such a question you would answer back! And according to you I should have just remained silent. Swallowed it up.I honestly wrote that I haven`t heard of C. Manson. I am not such a big girl as you are. I haven`t come across his name in the British and American press, though I read and translate a lot. Maybe it`s so far, maybe I just missed it or didn`t pay attention to it. But your post sounded like: Oh, you haven`t heard of him? How ignorant! And have you heard of The Beatles? Of R. Polanski? Very sheltered! And I was supposed to shut up.You are a clever person, Sandra, read your post again and say honestly whether you really didn`t want to punch.

Again putting words into my mouth. You infer a lot from one post. Being called sheltered isn't necessarily an insult. Some people do grow up a bit sheltered. So what? And pc threw that one out. I just happened to agree. Where's your aggression towards him? As for my comments, Jane, it's called sarcasm and sometimes grown ups use it with each other. The trick is, not to get so offended that you act like a child and play the "you started it" game. My first post was mild. Look at your own post then accusing me of being ethnocentric. Even after I explained why I feel this story is known throughout the world. Which you never acknowledged of course. So if you're prepared to throw stuff like that out, then be prepared to get some back. Like Swine said and others before him, stop playing the victim. You're no innocent.

I should have stuck to my self imposed rule of never responding to your posts because we always seem to disagree, but I went against my better judgment. So yeah, I claim responsibility for this one. I was a baaaad girl.

Oh, Sandra, Sandra! What a nice post, very friendly. Thank you.I never accused you of anything. If you think I put words in your mouth, look, you are doing the same thing but to a greater extent. And you are accusing me of aggressiveness, while I am just open and honest. And get hurt for that. May be because you are used to the famous doublespeak and duplicity, well, I am not.I called you - my American friend, and you admitted being sarcastic and wrote: I should have stuck to my self-imposed rule of never responding to your posts. Is it friendly? This is most unfriendly, I never said such words to you. So be a good girl.